draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-04.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05.txt 
Network Working Group F. Zhang, Ed. Network Working Group F. Zhang, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed.
Expires: August 18, 2014 Telefonica Global CTO Expires: January 5, 2015 Telefonica Global CTO
D. Li D. Li
Huawei Huawei
C. Margaria C. Margaria
M. Hartley M. Hartley
Z. Ali Z. Ali
Cisco Cisco
February 14, 2014 July 4, 2014
RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-04 draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05
Abstract Abstract
This document provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation This document provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support automatic Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support automatic
collection of Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) Information for the TE collection of Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) Information for the TE
link formed by a LSP. link formed by a LSP.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 41 skipping to change at page 1, line 41
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 5, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. RSVP-TE Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. SRLG Collection Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. RSVP-TE Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. SRLG Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. SRLG Collection Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. SRLG Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. SRLG Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. RSVP-TE Extensions (Encoding) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.3. SRLG Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. SRLG Collection Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. SRLG sub-object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. SRLG Collection Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Signaling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2. SRLG sub-object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. SRLG Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Signaling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. SRLG Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. SRLG Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. SRLG Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Policy Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.3. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Coherent SRLG IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1. Policy Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.2. Coherent SRLG IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. ROUTE_RECORD Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.3. Policy Control Failure Error subcodes . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.2. ROUTE_RECORD Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.3. Policy Control Failure Error subcodes . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
It is important to understand which TE links in the network might be It is important to understand which TE links in the network might be
at risk from the same failures. In this sense, a set of links may at risk from the same failures. In this sense, a set of links may
constitute a 'shared risk link group' (SRLG) if they share a resource constitute a 'shared risk link group' (SRLG) if they share a resource
whose failure may affect all links in the set [RFC4202]. whose failure may affect all links in the set [RFC4202].
On the other hand, as described in [RFC4206] and [RFC6107], H-LSP On the other hand, as described in [RFC4206] and [RFC6107], H-LSP
(Hierarchical LSP) or S-LSP (stitched LSP) can be used for carrying (Hierarchical LSP) or S-LSP (stitched LSP) can be used for carrying
one or more other LSPs. Both of the H-LSP and S-LSP can be formed as one or more other LSPs. Both of the H-LSP and S-LSP can be formed as
a TE link. In such cases, it is important to know the SRLG a TE link. In such cases, it is important to know the SRLG
information of the LSPs that will be used to carry further LSPs. information of the LSPs that will be used to carry further LSPs.
This document provides an automatic mechanism to collect the SRLG for This document provides an automatic mechanism to collect the SRLG for
the TE link formed by a LSP. Note that how to use the collected SRLG the TE link formed by a LSP. Note that how to use the collected SRLG
information is out of scope of this document information is out of scope of this document
2. RSVP-TE Requirements 2. Requirements Language
2.1. SRLG Collection Indication The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
The head nodes of the LSP must be capable of indicating whether the 3. RSVP-TE Requirements
SRLG information of the LSP should be collected during the signaling
procedure of setting up an LSP. SRLG information should not be
collected without an explicit request for it being made by the head
node.
2.2. SRLG Collection 3.1. SRLG Collection Indication
The ingress nodes of the LSP must be capable of indicating whether
the SRLG information of the LSP should be collected during the
signaling procedure of setting up an LSP. SRLG information SHOULD
NOT be collected without an explicit request for it being made by the
ingress node.
3.2. SRLG Collection
If requested, the SRLG information should be collected during the If requested, the SRLG information should be collected during the
setup of an LSP. The endpoints of the LSP may use the collected SRLG setup of an LSP. The endpoints of the LSP may use the collected SRLG
information and use it for routing, sharing and TE link configuration information and use it for routing, sharing and TE link configuration
purposes. purposes.
2.3. SRLG Update 3.3. SRLG Update
When the SRLG information of an existing LSP for which SRLG When the SRLG information of an existing LSP for which SRLG
information was collected during signaling changes, the relevant information was collected during signaling changes, the relevant
nodes of the LSP must be capable of updating the SRLG information of nodes of the LSP must be capable of updating the SRLG information of
the LSP. This means that that the signaling procedure must be the LSP. This means that that the signaling procedure must be
capable of updating the new SRLG information. capable of updating the new SRLG information.
3. RSVP-TE Extensions (Encoding) 4. Encodings
3.1. SRLG Collection Flag 4.1. SRLG Collection Flag
In order to indicate nodes that SRLG collection is desired, this In order to indicate nodes that SRLG collection is desired, this
document defines a new flag in the Attribute Flags TLV, which is document defines a new flag in the Attribute Flags TLV, which is
carried in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_ATTRIBUTE Object: carried in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_ATTRIBUTE Object:
o Bit Number (to be assigned by IANA, recommended bit 12): SRLG o Bit Number (to be assigned by IANA, recommended bit 12): SRLG
Collection flag Collection flag
The SRLG Collection flag is meaningful on a Path message. If the The SRLG Collection flag is meaningful on a Path message. If the
SRLG Collection flag is set to 1, it means that the SRLG information SRLG Collection flag is set to 1, it means that the SRLG information
should be reported to the head and tail node along the setup of the should be reported to the ingress and egress node along the setup of
LSP. the LSP.
The rules of the processing of the Attribute Flags TLV are not The rules of the processing of the Attribute Flags TLV are not
changed. changed.
3.2. SRLG sub-object 4.2. SRLG sub-object
This document defines a new RRO sub-object (ROUTE_RECORD sub-object) This document defines a new RRO sub-object (ROUTE_RECORD sub-object)
to record the SRLG information of the LSP. Its format is modeled on to record the SRLG information of the LSP. Its format is modeled on
the RRO sub-objects defined in RFC 3209 [RFC3209]. the RRO sub-objects defined in RFC 3209 [RFC3209].
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Reserved | | Type | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 4, line 30 skipping to change at page 4, line 38
| SRLG ID n (4 bytes) | | SRLG ID n (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type Type
The type of the sub-object, to be assigned by IANA, which is The type of the sub-object, to be assigned by IANA, which is
recommended 34. recommended 34.
Length Length
The Length contains the total length of the sub-object in bytes, The Length field contains the total length of the sub-object in
including the Type and Length fields. The Length depends on the bytes, including the Type and Length fields. The Length depends on
number of SRLG IDs. the number of SRLG IDs.
Reserved
This 2 byte field is reserved. It SHOULD be set to zero on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
SRLG ID
This 4 byte field contains one SRLG ID. There is one SRLG ID field
per SRLG collected.
As described in RFC 3209 [RFC3209], the RECORD_ROUTE object is
managed as a stack. The SRLG sub-object SHOULD be pushed by the node
before the node IP address or link identifier. The SRLG-sub-object
SHOULD be pushed after the Attribute subobject, if present, and after
the LABEL subobject, if requested.
A node MUST NOT push a SRLG subobject in the RECORD_ROUTE without
also pushing a IPv4, IPv6 or Unnumbered Interface ID sub-object.
The rules of the processing of the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES, The rules of the processing of the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES,
LSP_ATTRIBUTE and ROUTE_RECORD Objects are not changed. LSP_ATTRIBUTE and ROUTE_RECORD Objects are not changed.
4. Signaling Procedures 5. Signaling Procedures
4.1. SRLG Collection 5.1. SRLG Collection
Typically, the head node gets the route information of an LSP by Per RFC 3209 [RFC3209], an ingress node initiates the recording of
adding a RRO which contains the sender's IP addresses in the Path the route information of an LSP by adding a RRO to a Path message.
message. If a head node also desires SRLG recording, it sets the If an ingress node also desires SRLG recording, it MUST set the SRLG
SRLG Collection Flag in the Attribute Flags TLV which can be carried Collection Flag in the Attribute Flags TLV which MAY be carried
either in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object if the collection is either in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object when the collection is
mandatory, or in an LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object if the collection is mandatory, or in an LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object when the collection is
desired, but not mandatory desired, but not mandatory
When a node receives a Path message which carries an When a node receives a Path message which carries an
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and the SRLG Collection Flag is set, LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and the SRLG Collection Flag set, if
if local policy determines that the SRLG information should not be local policy determines that the SRLG information is not to be
provided to the endpoints, it MUST return a PathErr message with provided to the endpoints, it MUST return a PathErr message with
Error Code 2 (policy) and Error subcode "SRLG Recording Rejected" Error Code 2 (policy) and Error subcode "SRLG Recording Rejected"
(value to be assigned by IANA, suggest value 108) to reject the Path (value to be assigned by IANA, suggest value 108) to reject the Path
message. message.
When a node receives a Path message which carries an LSP_ATTRIBUTES When a node receives a Path message which carries an LSP_ATTRIBUTES
Object and the SRLG Collection Flag is set, if local policy Object and the SRLG Collection Flag set, if local policy determines
determines that the SRLG information should not be provided to the that the SRLG information is not to be provided to the endpoints, the
endpoints, the Path message SHOULD NOT be rejected due to SRLG Path message SHOULD NOT be rejected due to SRLG recording restriction
recording restriction and the Path message SHOULD be forwarded and the Path message SHOULD be forwarded without any SRLG sub-
without the SRLG sub-object(s) in the Path RRO. object(s) in the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Path message.
If local policy permits the recording of the SRLG information, the If local policy permits the recording of the SRLG information, the
processing node SHOULD add an SRLG sub-object to the RRO to carry the processing node SHOULD add local SRLG information, as defined below,
local SRLG information. It then forwards the Path message to the to the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Path message. It then
next node in the downstream direction. forwards the Path message to the next node in the downstream
direction.
Following the steps described above, the intermediate nodes of the Following the steps described above, the intermediate nodes of the
LSP can collect the SRLG information in the RRO during the forwarding LSP can collect the SRLG information in the RRO during the processing
of the Path message hop by hop. When the Path message arrives at the of the Path message hop by hop. When the Path message arrives at the
tail node, the tail node can get the SRLG information from the RRO. egress node, the egress node receives SRLG information in the RRO.
Before the Resv message is sent to the upstream node, the tail node Per RFC 3209 [RFC3209], when issuing a Resv message for a Path
adds the SRLG subobject with the SRLG value(s) associated with the message which contains an RRO, an egress node initiates the RRO
local hop to the Resv RRO in a similar manner to that specified above process by adding an RRO to the outgoing Resv message. The
for the addition of Path RRO sub-objects by midpoint nodes. processing for RROs contained in Resv messages then mirrors that of
the Path messages.
When a node receives a Resv message for an LSP for which SRLG When a node receives a Resv message for an LSP for which SRLG
Collection is specified, if local policy determines that the SRLG Collection is specified, if local policy determines that the SRLG
information should not be provided to the endpoints, if the SRLG- information is not to be provided to the endpoints, if the SRLG-
recording request was in a LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object, then a recording request was in a LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object, then a
ResvErr with Error code 2 (policy) and Error subcode "SRLG Recording ResvErr with Error code 2 (policy) and Error subcode "SRLG Recording
Rejected" (value to be assigned by IANA, suggest value 108) MUST be Rejected" (value to be assigned by IANA, suggest value 108) MUST be
sent. If the request was in a LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, then a ResvErr sent. If the request was in a LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, then a ResvErr
SHOULD NOT be generated, but SRLG information must not be added in SHOULD NOT be generated, but SRLG information MUST NOT be added in
the RRO. Otherwise, if local policy allows to provide the SRLG the RRO. When local policy allows recording SRLG information, the
information, it MUST add an SRLG sub-object to the RRO to carry the node SHOULD add SRLG information, as defined below, to the RRO of the
SRLG information in the upstream direction. When the Resv message corresponding outgoing Resv message. When the Resv message arrives
arrives at the head node, the head node can get the SRLG information at the ingress node, the ingress node can get the SRLG information
from the RRO in the same way as the tail node. from the RRO in the same way as the egress node.
Note that a link's SRLG information for the upstream direction cannot Note that a link's SRLG information for the upstream direction cannot
be assumed to be the same as that in the downstream. be assumed to be the same as that in the downstream.
o For Path and Resv messages for a unidirectional LSP, a node SHOULD o For Path and Resv messages for a unidirectional LSP, a node SHOULD
include SRLG sub-objects in the RRO for the downstream data link include SRLG sub-objects in the RRO for the downstream data link
only. only.
o For Path and Resv messages for a bidirectional LSP, a node SHOULD o For Path and Resv messages for a bidirectional LSP, a node SHOULD
include SRLG sub-objects in the RRO for both the upstream data include SRLG sub-objects in the RRO for both the upstream data
skipping to change at page 6, line 19 skipping to change at page 7, line 5
both Path messages and Resv messages. That is, the SRLG sub- both Path messages and Resv messages. That is, the SRLG sub-
object for the upstream link is added to the RRO before the SRLG object for the upstream link is added to the RRO before the SRLG
sub-object for the downstream link. sub-object for the downstream link.
Based on the above procedure, the endpoints can get the SRLG Based on the above procedure, the endpoints can get the SRLG
information automatically. Then the endpoints can for instance information automatically. Then the endpoints can for instance
advertise it as a TE link to the routing instance based on the advertise it as a TE link to the routing instance based on the
procedure described in [RFC6107] and configure the SRLG information procedure described in [RFC6107] and configure the SRLG information
of the FA automatically. of the FA automatically.
4.2. SRLG Update 5.2. SRLG Update
When the SRLG information of a link is changed, the LSPs using that When the SRLG information of a link is changed, the LSPs using that
link should be aware of the changes. The procedures defined in link should be aware of the changes. The procedures defined in
Section 4.4.3 of RFC 3209 [RFC3209] MUST be used to refresh the SRLG Section 4.4.3 of RFC 3209 [RFC3209] MUST be used to refresh the SRLG
information if the SRLG change is to be communicated to other nodes information if the SRLG change is to be communicated to other nodes
according to the local node's policy. If local policy is that the according to the local node's policy. If local policy is that the
SRLG change should be suppressed or would result in no change to the SRLG change should be suppressed or would result in no change to the
previously signaled SRLG-list, the node need not send an update. previously signaled SRLG-list, the node SHOULD NOT send an update.
5. Manageability Considerations 5.3. Compatibility
5.1. Policy Configuration A node that does not recognize the SRLG Collection Flag in the
Attribute Flags TLV is expected to proceed as specified in RFC 5420
[RFC5420]. It is expected to pass the TLV on unaltered if it appears
in a LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, or reject the Path message with the
appropriate Error Code and Value if it appears in a
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object.
A node that does not recognize the SRLG RRO sub-object is expected to
behave as specified in RFC 3209 [RFC3209]: unrecognized subobjects
are to be ignored and passed on unchanged.
6. Manageability Considerations
6.1. Policy Configuration
In a border node of inter-domain or inter-layer network, the In a border node of inter-domain or inter-layer network, the
following SRLG processing policy should be capable of being following SRLG processing policy should be capable of being
configured: configured:
o Whether the SRLG IDs of the domain or specific layer network can o Whether the SRLG IDs of the domain or specific layer network can
be exposed to the nodes outside the domain or layer network, or be exposed to the nodes outside the domain or layer network, or
whether they should be summarized or removed entirely. whether they should be summarized, mapped to values that are
comprehensible to nodes outside the domain or layer network, or
removed entirely.
5.2. Coherent SRLG IDs 6.2. Coherent SRLG IDs
In a multi-layer multi-domain scenario, SRLG ids may be configured by In a multi-layer multi-domain scenario, SRLG ids may be configured by
different management entities in each layer/domain. In such different management entities in each layer/domain. In such
scenarios, maintaining a coherent set of SRLG IDs is a key scenarios, maintaining a coherent set of SRLG IDs is a key
requirement in order to be able to use the SRLG information properly. requirement in order to be able to use the SRLG information properly.
Thus, SRLG IDs must be unique. Note that current procedure is Thus, SRLG IDs must be unique. Note that current procedure is
targeted towards a scenario where the different layers and domains targeted towards a scenario where the different layers and domains
belong to the same operator, or to several coordinated administrative belong to the same operator, or to several coordinated administrative
groups. Ensuring the aforementioned coherence of SRLG IDs is beyond groups. Ensuring the aforementioned coherence of SRLG IDs is beyond
the scope of this document. the scope of this document.
Further scenarios, where coherence in the SRLG IDs cannot be Further scenarios, where coherence in the SRLG IDs cannot be
guaranteed are out of the scope of the present document and are left guaranteed are out of the scope of the present document and are left
for further study. for further study.
6. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any additional security issues above This document does not introduce any additional security issues above
those identified in [RFC5920][RFC3209][RFC3473] those identified in [RFC5920][RFC3209][RFC3473]
7. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
7.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags 8.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags
IANA has created a registry and manages the space of attributes bit IANA has created a registry and manages the space of attributes bit
flags of Attribute Flags TLV, as described in section 11.3 of flags of Attribute Flags TLV, as described in section 11.3 of
[RFC5420], in the "Attributes TLV Space" section of the "Resource [RFC5420], in the "Attributes TLV Space" section of the "Resource
Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters" Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters"
registry located in https://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te- registry located in https://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-
parameters/rsvp-te-parameters.xhtml. It is requested that IANA makes parameters/rsvp-te-parameters.xhtml. It is requested that IANA makes
assignments from the Attribute Bit Flags. assignments from the Attribute Bit Flags.
This document introduces a new Attribute Bit Flag: This document introduces a new Attribute Bit Flag:
o Bit number: TBD (10) o Bit number: TBD (10)
o Defining RFC: this I-D o Defining RFC: this I-D
o Name of bit: SRLG Collection Flag o Name of bit: SRLG Collection Flag
o The meaning of the SRLG Collection Flag is defined in this I-D. o The meaning of the SRLG Collection Flag is defined in this I-D.
7.2. ROUTE_RECORD Object 8.2. ROUTE_RECORD Object
IANA has made the following assignments in the "Class Names, Class IANA has made the following assignments in the "Class Names, Class
Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry
located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. We located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. We
request that IANA make assignments from the ROUTE_RECORD RFC 3209 request that IANA make assignments from the ROUTE_RECORD RFC 3209
[RFC3209] portions of this registry. [RFC3209] portions of this registry.
This document introduces a new RRO sub-object: This document introduces a new RRO sub-object:
Type Name Reference Type Name Reference
--------- ---------------------- --------- --------- ---------------------- ---------
TBD (34) SRLG sub-object This I-D TBD (34) SRLG sub-object This I-D
7.3. Policy Control Failure Error subcodes 8.3. Policy Control Failure Error subcodes
IANA has made the following assignments in the "Error Codes and IANA has made the following assignments in the "Error Codes and
Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" section of the "RSVP Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" section of the "RSVP
PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp- PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-
parameters. We request that IANA make assignments from the Policy parameters. We request that IANA make assignments from the Policy
Control Failure Sub-Codes registry. Control Failure Sub-Codes registry.
This document introduces a new Policy Control Failure Error sub-code: This document introduces a new Policy Control Failure Error sub-code:
o Error sub-code: TBD (108) o Error sub-code: TBD (108)
o Defining RFC: this I-D o Defining RFC: this I-D
o Name of error sub-code: SRLG Recording Rejected o Name of error sub-code: SRLG Recording Rejected
o The meaning of the SRLG Recording Rejected error sub-code is o The meaning of the SRLG Recording Rejected error sub-code is
defined in this I-D defined in this I-D
8. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Igor Bryskin, Ramon Casellas, Lou The authors would like to thank Igor Bryskin, Ramon Casellas, Lou
Berger and Alan Davey for their useful comments and improvements to Berger and Alan Davey for their useful comments and improvements to
the document. the document.
9. Normative References 10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in [RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP) [RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005. (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.
[RFC5150] Ayyangar, A., Kompella, K., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS
TE)", RFC 5150, February 2008.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS [RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[RFC6107] Shiomoto, K. and A. Farrel, "Procedures for Dynamically [RFC6107] Shiomoto, K. and A. Farrel, "Procedures for Dynamically
Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths", RFC 6107, Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths", RFC 6107,
February 2011. February 2011.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Fatai Zhang (editor) Fatai Zhang (editor)
skipping to change at page 9, line 29 skipping to change at page 10, line 39
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor) Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor)
Telefonica Global CTO Telefonica Global CTO
Don Ramon de la Cruz Don Ramon de la Cruz
Madrid 28006 Madrid 28006
Spain Spain
Phone: +34 913328832 Phone: +34 913328832
Email: ogondio@tid.es Email: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com
Dan Li Dan Li
Huawei Huawei
F3-5-B RD Center F3-5-B RD Center
Bantian, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518129 Bantian, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518129
P.R.China P.R.China
Email: danli@huawei.com Email: danli@huawei.com
Cyril Margaria Cyril Margaria
SabenerStr. 44 SabenerStr. 44
Munich 81547 Munich 81547
Germany Germany
Phone: +49 89 5159 16934 Phone: +49 89 5159 16934
Email: cyril.margaria@gmail.com Email: cyril.margaria@gmail.com
Matt Hartley Matt Hartley
Cisco Cisco
Email: mhartley@cisco.com Email: mhartley@cisco.com
Zafar Ali Zafar Ali
Cisco Cisco
Email: zali@cisco.com Email: zali@cisco.com
 End of changes. 44 change blocks. 
93 lines changed or deleted 146 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/